SCIED 552: Science Teaching and Learning Developing Models of Science Teaching

The Delisi paper seems to be strongly leaning towards situated/sociocultural learning. Science fairs themselves have many sociocultural aspects such as the presentation to judges, outsider observation, presentation standards, and even the topic studied might be more liked based on a communal situation that is relatable to those in that school district. Of course the study of science fairs and its effects on student understanding of Science and engineering practices is not immediately advocating for situated learning but there are some specific excerpts from the paper that I think show where the authors stand. On page 493 the authors talk about what inspires their research by saying, “Our research is shaped by prior work on inquiry-based instruction and learning theories
that highlight factors important for developing students’ understandings of science concepts and practices”. Based on multiple definitions of what inquiry based learning is this is a pretty clear indication of where these researchers stand on how it is best for students to understand Science and engineering practices. This is also apparent based on the the actual goal of the study which is to show the relationship between different schools execution of science fairs and the students understanding of SEPs. And more specifically teacher scaffolding in this process and understanding of SEPs. To me this shows the assumption of the authors that science fairs (a situated sociocultural setting) is already a great way for students to learn scientific practices but they would like to know to what degree is teacher involvement in this process beneficial. I am not making a claim for the authors stance overall but I do claim that the authors believe situated learning is better for learning scientific practices. 

DeLisi et al. (2021) say their research is shaped by constructivist and sociocultural frameworks because they believe that “science learning is a social process”. They suggest that active thinking, authentic science investigation, and engaging in evidence based argument are predictors of student learning and interest in science.  In some ways, this is similar to the AST approach.  The authors also suggest a relationship between using these teaching and learning practices and student understanding of science and engineering practices.  The first part of the study, in which they survey student understanding of SEPs, is a cognitive approach because it focuses on understanding of individual students.  In the second part of the study, the researchers collected qualitative data that was coded by the researchers.  One element of sociocultural theory that the researchers explored was “correlations in high levels of support and enactment of SEPs, including opportunities for students to engage in critiquing practices such as communicating and evaluating findings”.  They indicate that the social aspects of critiquing practices may help students understand SEPs and that this knowledge is “more transferrable”.  The case studies show that some schools are using elements of socio cultural learning theory when students are working on, and especially when they are presenting, their work but that’s more an element of the schools’ atmosphere than a foundation of the research study.  Overall, the DeLisi et al paper seems to be a mix of cognitive and sociocultural theories.  

In Huang (2020), the research is also based on surveys which Scott said is almost always an indication of a cognitive approach.  In this study, Huang looks at changes in individual learning over time and notes that factors like prior knowledge have an impact on student learning as outlined in the cognitive change approach.  Although the study takes a cognitive approach, it investigates the impact of socioculturally based learning (teamwork) on student learning. I thought it was interesting that Huang suggests using inquiry-based classes to narrow achievement gaps early on in college.  I think it’s important to remember that the label “inquiry-based” is applied to a wide array of instructional practices that may or may not be valuable.

Isaacson et al. (2016) demonstrates that accessibility in hands-on labs can impact the self esteem and long term plans of students with BLV.  Again, the study employs a survey to reach its conclusions, and because of the focus on individual experience, it seems to fall in the cognitive camp.  

Learning science through hands-on experiences is one of the essential aspects of science education because it not only challenges individual understanding of science but it also allows students to experience some of the practices of scientific disciplines, which can build confidence and encourage entry into STEM fields.  This week’s articles look at different aspects of hands-on learning.

Isaacson et al, investigated the impact of using accessible lab equipment (synthetic voice LabQuest software that allowed BLV students to complete the lab without teacher help) on BLV students’ STEM identity and interest in STEM.  They found that after participating in accessible hands on labs, the students were more likely to agree with statements that they were considering entering STEM programs.

Huang looked at how intro level inquiry based labs impact different groups of students in different ways.  The study indicated that novice learners experience more growth and more positive experience with team based learning than experienced learners.  So the gap between the two groups narrows; however, the more experienced group indicated that they were developing negative attitudes toward both teamwork and problems solving.

DeLisi et al studied the impact of middle school science fairs on students’ understandings of science and engineering practices.  In the case studies, the students highlighted the differences between the mode of instruction/learning in regular science class vs the method during the science fair portion of the class. Even when teachers narrowed potential science fair topics to a few that were aligned with grade level standards, students still commented on the difference in learning experiences.

These articles underscore both individual, cognitive aspects of learning science and group level dynamics.  Isaacson is concerned with STEM identity, which in this case appears to be very individual based on what students perceive is possible for themselves.  The introduction of accessibility software changed their notions of what was plausible and therefore changed how they viewed themselves in relation to STEM.  Huang used individual surveys about group learning experiences and found that the group learning experiences differed depending on where the students were before the course began.  DeLisi et al used a variety of methods to look at how science fairs were implemented and what impact they had on student understanding of SEPs.

All three studies investigate the relationship between hands on experiences in STEM and individual learning, while Huang and DeLisi also touch on the intersection of situated group practices and individual cognitive development in STEM.

First, I read Isaacson et al. (2016). This study used likert-scale surveys as the only form of data collection. The surveys were administered to the students before and after they complete a lab to see how the lab’s accessibility is related to students’ beliefs and motivations surrounding science. Huang (2021) also used a likert-scale survey to determine how inquiry-based science labs impacted students, with different experience levels, problem-solving and teamwork attitudes. Considering these researchers only used surveys, I think these studies fall into the cognitive theory category. I think if the researchers had, say in Huang, gone to the different labs and recorded what the students were saying and how they were working together through observation notes or video recording and then used this as the data to analyze to base their conclusions about problem-solving and attitudes off of then I think this would have made the studies more sociocultural. I don’t know, what do you all think?

I feel like that was a good segue to the DeLisi et al. (2021) article about science fairs and their support of students’ understanding of science and engineering practices. This study used pre and post science fair assessments as one form of data. If this was the only form of data, even though the theoretical framework seems very situated, I would have to say this is a cognitive study. However, the researchers also observed the science fairs and looked at how the teachers scaffolded the students’ development of questions and investigation, sense-making and reflection of each other’s work. The researchers also completed interviews. I think because there were other forms of data besides the assessment, especially the observations where the researchers could see the interactions of the students and teachers, makes this study fall into the situated category.

It seemed like surveys were the dish of the week with these articles. All of them had some strong survey component and one had a post-pre survey which I’d actually never heard of. To be honest, I had a bit of trouble parsing the results of the Huang article because I’m just not familiar with the kind of statistical analysis implemented there.

Otherwise, I thought the results of the two longer articles were interesting. With only my personal limited science fair experience, I didn’t realize that implementation of these sorts of fairs varied so wildly, and would have never considered how these implementations would affect learning outcomes. I really enjoyed reading the case studies in this paper and the teacher reasoning for why they chose one method or another to use. It seems almost always there was an issue with the time that such a fair takes out of typical class instruction time and I always wonder about this element when trying to implement more open-ended science lessons, labs, etc.

The other article I found surprising was the one by Huang. I wouldn’t have thought about how lessons can actually negatively impact the attitude of students who may have a bit of a headstart over their peers. I would have thought that this may be a universal feeling in group work when one member doesn’t put in the time/effort that others do, but didn’t think to link it specifically to students who have more background knowledge in the subject. I’m curious to learn more too about their different DEEP levels and hopefully get some help parsing them in class. I’ve never heard of such a ranking systems and it seems bizarre to me.

The last article didn’t really hold any surprises for me. If science practices are inaccessible for whatever reason, then naturally someone wouldn’t be able to picture themself pursuing a career in science. I feel like this is likely true for more than students with disabilities, but also those in schools without funding for science equipment, e.g.

The article talking about LGBQ major retention in. stem seemed like a well executed study. The most telling part of this study is that heterosexual students who aspired to be STEM in their first year retained their major more frequently than LGBQ students even though a much larger portion of LGBQ students took on undergraduate projects. I am wondering if this has something to do with treatment during the undergraduate research as during this type of research the student would deal with the STEM community more frequently than if they were to just take classes and get their credits.

I am interested in seeing what others in the class have taken from this article or if they were able to notice anything else that was concerning to them.